Bava Batra 156a — the Talmud in English

He said to him,

Ameimar explains:

And according to your reasoning,

according to your view, Rav Ashi, if he indeed profits from his sale, when

he sells five for six,

selling an object worth five for six,

is his sale also a valid sale,

will the sale indeed stand, since he profits from this sale!? But this we have not found.

Rather,

we are compelled to say that

it is established to the Sages,

it is known to the Sages,

that a minor’s mind is drawn close to money,

that a minor’s mind is close to money and he greatly longs for money,

and if you say that his sale is a valid sale,

if his sale is effective when he profits, we must be concerned lest

sometimes

at times

they jingle coins for him

and offer him money, and then

he goes and sells all of his father’s property.

He will go and sell all of his father’s property at a reduced price. Therefore, the Sages instituted that he cannot sell at all.

But with regard to a gift,

if he wishes to give a gift, they instituted that he can give it, because

if he had not had benefit from him,

if he had not received benefit from him,

he would not have given him a gift,

he would not have given him a gift for no reason. It follows that the gift is repayment for what they gave him; therefore

the Sages said

the Sages instituted,

let his gift be a gift,

so that he can give a gift in order

that they will do things for them,

so that people will wish to benefit them, knowing that he will repay them in the future.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel,

even though a minor or a minor girl have reached the age of majority, it is impossible to determine based on the number of years that they are adults; rather,

they are examined,

it is ascertained whether they have brought the signs of maturity, and then they are considered adults. And even though we have a presumption that anyone who has reached thirteen years has presumably also brought pubic hairs, this is effective only for laws of the Sages, such as mi’un, but for laws from the Torah, to determine that he is certainly an adult, this is impossible unless they examine him .

And therefore they examine

for betrothal,

and if signs are found, even if she accepts betrothal from another man, the second betrothal is not betrothal, since she is betrothed to the first. But if signs are not found now, but only after the second betrothal, she requires a divorce document from both of them due to doubt, since it is not known when she brought the signs .

And for divorce,

for if hairs are not found for the man or for the woman, there is no divorce [and this will be explained below].

And for halitza,

this refers only to the woman, who can perform halitza only if she has brought hairs.

And for mi’un,

a minor girl whom her brothers or her mother married off can perform mi’un as long as she has not matured, but once she has brought hairs, she cannot perform mi’un .

And to sell his father’s property until he is twenty years old

and has brought hairs.

And the Gemara asks:

And since we examine for betrothal,

since we examined for betrothal and saw that he is an adult, if so, he is an adult also at the time of divorce,

why do I need [an examination] for divorce!?

Why is it necessary to examine again before the divorce!?

And the Gemara answers:

It was necessary only for levirate marriage.

For there was no betrothal, but rather levirate marriage.

For we learned: A boy of nine years and one day who has intercourse with his yevama acquires her. And he does not give a divorce document until he becomes an adult!

And it is proven that levirate marriage applies even to a minor; therefore, it is necessary to examine before the divorce, because he does not give a divorce document until he becomes an adult.

The Gemara explains:

For halitza,

what is the novelty concerning halitza that it is necessary to examine? After all, it is like divorce!

Rather,

to exclude the view of Rabbi Yose,

this teaches that it is not in accordance with Rabbi Yose,

who says, “A man” is written in the passage,

in the passage of halitza, “So shall be done to the man,” and “man” means only an adult. But

a woman, whether an adult or a minor,

can perform halitza.

It teaches us,

it comes to teach us,

that we equate a woman with a man,

that we equate a woman with a man, so that a woman too performs halitza only if she is an adult,

not in accordance with Rabbi Yose.

And the Gemara continues to explain,

and for mi’un,

if we found hairs, she does not perform mi’un,

to exclude the view of Rabbi Yehuda,

to teach that it is not according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda,

who says

that it is necessary to examine for mi’un in such a manner that the length of the hairs will be

until the black is more abundant than the white,

until the hairs grow and lie upon the white flesh.

It teaches us that it is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

but rather, short hairs too are a sign of maturity.

And to sell his father’s property until he is twenty years old —

it comes to teach

to exclude the one who says that he is eighteen years old

years old.

And now the Gemara decides the laws stated above:

And the halakha is: within the period, it is like before the period,

and he sells only after he has completed his twentieth year.

And the halakha is

the halakha

is like Giddel bar Menashya,

that if he understands the nature of business transactions, he sells his father’s property from the age of thirteen.

And the halakha is

the halakha

is like Mar Zutra,

that for testimony concerning movable property, he testifies from the age of thirteen years.

And the halakha is like Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel in all of them,

in all the laws stated above.

Mishna:

One who distributes his property by his word,

a person who distributes his property by speech alone —

Rabbi Elazar says: Both a healthy person and one dangerously ill,

even a dangerously ill person who is dying requires an act of acquisition. And he disagrees with the ordinance that the words of a dangerously ill person are like written and delivered documents by speech alone.

And according to him,

property that has responsibility

is land,

is acquired with money, with a document, and with possession,

it is necessary to perform the acts of acquisition specific to land.

And that which does not have responsibility

is movable property,

is acquired only through pulling.

For this is the act of acquisition for movable property.